Nothing you have stated here above contradict of conflicts with anything I have posted.

I ignored no fact. Of course the north did not want them (slaves) counted as a full person. THEY HAD NO VOTE, no oppertunity to affect policy in anyway. The south (and much of the north) didn’t consider them people to begin with. The South wanted to count these “non people” as population for representation, the North didn’t.

Ignoring.. the Taxable part.. which was part of the 3/5ths Compromise..

Something the North wanted...

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Which is fine, as they were property not people who had any political voice.

The 3/5 clause was horrible. If the south wanted slaves to count towards the population in regards to representatives, then they should have given them the right to vote. You are either a citizen or not, none of this 3/5 BS.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

Actually you should here. Either they are one person or property, not some form of the two. Either they count towards population or count towards taxation. I'm glad we never have to deal with the clause again.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

That’s part of politics and compromise of during the forming of the Union. The North wasn't about to let the South, all 6 of them, run off on its own at such a monumental time.

I can say this,every race has at one time or another been enslaved and that include the white race...

__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL THAT DEFEND HER!!!!

When have that been, only time I can think of whites have been slaves were at the hards of other whites

The Romans: Equal oportunity oppressors.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

US Civil War about slavery or 'states rights'?

US conservatives (mostly of a 'southern' persuasion) have been trying to create this argument for about 140 years now. Their reasons for making this argument are obvious, self-serving and hardly worthy of mention (and pure propaganda).

However, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America betrays them.

Article #1, section #9, paragraph #4 states...

In other words, in the Confederacy, on the supposedly all important issue of 'states rights', the Confederate States had no rights at all when it came to slavery - slavery was mandated as permanent institution of the Confederacy and enshrined in the Constitution as such (no law may be passed that impinges upon the institution of owning slaves).

If the Civil War was all about 'states rights' then there is no way that the Confederate Constitution would legally abjure the principle of states rights. That the Confederate Constitution, passed into law on March 11, 1861, legally abjures the principle of 'states rights' shows the fallacy of the modern day revisionist attempt to pretend that the noble gentlemen of the south were only concerned about the principles of states' rights and the issue of slavery was merely incidental to the conflict.